In Tayebi v. KPMG, LLP., 18 Misc. 3d 1139[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50374[U], 2008 WL 518149 [Sup. Ct., NY County] plaintiff retained KPMG in 1998 as his tax advisor. In 2000, KPMG marketed an allegedly fraudulent tax shelter to plaintiff and asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") would allow a deduction for losses generated by the tax shelter. KPMG prepared plaintiff's 2000 taxes and it appears that KPMG continued to provide accounting services and tax advice to plaintiff through 2003. In 2004, the IRS notified plaintiff that the tax shelter deduction was invalid and plaintiff was required to pay substantial back taxes and interest. Plaintiff commenced an action against KPMG in 2007 and KPMG argued that the malpractice claims against it were time barred because the tax shelter transaction occurred in 2000. KPMG's motion to dismiss was denied because, in its engagement letter, KPMG contractually agreed to meet with Tayebi to " discuss the U.S. federal income tax implications associated with participation in the tax shelter transaction'". This language demonstrated that KPMG did not intend to disassociate itself from plaintiff's tax shelter transaction and that the "intent of the engagement letter raises a significant factual issue, because the nature and scope of the Engagement Letter plays a key role in determining whether the parties contemplated continuous representation." (Id at 5.)